Yes, you often DO make some of us think.
Unfortunately, this curious comparison of Net Neutrality to Communism/Socialism/Marxism only causes any functionally-thinking person to simply scratch his head, wondering WTF you’ve been smokin’ lately! (Probably a more plausible explanation of why you’d be laughing as well.)

Net Neutrality is no dream. The Internet began with it.
Much of it is still intact, however, corporate interference is attempting to take it away, and causing us to defend it. However, these corporates didn’t create the Internet, and only own parts of it that CAN be replaced. Most of them are clinging to the idea that seizing control of certain elements of the Internet will save their butts from sinking with their failing business models. It won’t work.

There’s nothing “socialistic” about throttling.
In order to have a socialist act, you still need an accepted authority to initiate it. Providers don’t have the authority (at least in North America) to interfere with data, nor do they own the data itself. Throttling is a senseless activity that is counterproductive to a mission of keeping data moving. Using “throttling” and “network management” in the same sentence only creates an oxymoron.

I’m sure the providers that engage in throttling know this as well, and have an ulterior motive behind it all…

Step 1: Keep spewing the “P2P steals everyone’s bandwidth” propaganda to justify network interference.
(Already done)

Step 2: Keep kissing MAFIAA butt and give creedance to their “P2P users are all thieves” propaganda, to justify spying.
(Already done)

Step 3: Convince governments about the need to increase providers’ control over data, to curb “illegal downloading”, “IP theft” and “network congestion” (maybe throw in “child pornography” for good measure?), thus opening the door for a mass blessing of their use of DPI technology.
(In progress!)

Results:
- DPI becomes widely accepted.
- warrantless spying becomes acceptable.
- arbitrary traffic shaping becomes acceptable.
- anti-competitive behaviour by large mainstream providers becomes virtually impossible to challenge.

The idea that users are somehow responsible for the mess is the “empty rhetoric” that is widely used to deflect the fact (as you continue to do, by the way, Tom) that subscribers were sold a service they’re not getting, and the agreement between the customer and the business is being violated.

Providers are only “distribution nodes” that we’ve allowed to evolve into something way too important-seeming. The reality is, everything a provider does with its network impacts the rest of the world network in some way. If they don’t summarily allow an unfettered, free flow of information through their own pipes, they’re doing the rest of the world a complete disservice.

Traffic processed by a provider is certainly not comprised of only their own subscribers. If providers are allowed to tamper with or examine any of this data on an ongoing basis, they really should need the rest of the world’s permission to do so.

That won’t work either.

Tom, I really don’t know where you were going here.
You profess to be a “proponent of P2P” and “just the messenger”, yet you repeat some of the same corporate BS that has already been debunked ad nauseum.

1) “Don’t bitch about what you can’t change” (??)
I would direct that one back at the corporates, who are trying to TAKE AWAY Net Neutrality. Anyway, who TF says anything here can’t be changed?!

2) “I am happy to debate this subject… with anyone that has had more than 20,000 customers…Anyone else just doesnt really have a ‘clue’.”
What?! You think this is a matter that can only be debated by PROVIDERS??
Not only is that disingenuous to the masses, but totally inappropriate and stinking of some strange misdirected elitism.
You can debate the technical aspects of network provision all you want – it has virtually nothing to do with the Net Neutrality debate. In the end, you’re still avoiding the questions of reneging on a business agreement with your customers, and whether or not a provider should have the right to interfere with everyone’s data (the heart of the debate).

3) “I cant drive my old 7 series down the freeway at 200 miles per hour”
This is a pretty feeble analogy.
Did anyone do anything to give you the impression you could do this!
Is anyone else on that freeway supposed to do that, either!
You enter the freeway under ADVERTISED CONDITIONS… the speed limit, and the Law.
This is a complete contrast to many providers, who continually, to this day, advertise “always fast”, “unlimited”, “download large files, streaming video and other rich media”, yet pull the rug out from under you for doing just that.

As for the “communist/marxist/socialist” references you’ve made, I can only put that down to possible sleep deprivation on your part.

…But, it did almost make me laugh.

No, there isn’t.

Don’t keep shooting the messenger (err me) think about the logic of what I have said.
Don’t bitch about what you can’t change – ask how can you impact positively the network to bring anout the change that you desire?

My job is to make you think.
Regardless of what you think of my comments – there is now a seed of logical doubt in your minds – let it grow.

And keep using that P2P software.

I went to school in a communist regime and received my Doctorate in Economics from the same communist regime. (Now there’s a non-sequiter.)
The peculiarity is that Economics is essentially based on consumer demand, a regulated market and profiting from the opprtunities.

Net Neutrality is a socialist policy and whilst in a perfect world, I would agree with it entirely, It doesnt work for the same reason I cant drive my old 7 series down the freeway at 200 miles per hour – regulatory interdiction.

On the freeway it’s the police, on the Net its the meet-me rooms, the internet exchanges, the upstream and downstream fair use policies, the number of ports available for traffic exchange, the port size of those ports (T1, T3, OC-3, OC-??) the backplane at Mae-West, Mae-East.

Throttling bandwidth to ensure that every member of the proletariat can equally use the bandwidth is also a socialistic policy.

So essentially we have a bunch of Capitalists (the ISP’s & RBOC’s) utilising and espousing comunist tactics to maximise their capitalist earnings and we have bunch of social democrat (users) screaming unfair distribution to the co-operative.

I have to smile.

As for Rocky; I have to commend you dude. That’s a wonderful stand to take.
I offerred internet access (initially to friends and family (1986) and then to the whole of Australia (1992-94), which expanded across the pond in 1995 to Oregon, Washington State, Utah and California and yeah we even crossed the Border at Rock Ridge into BC…… (infra red T1’s). I stoped servicing clients in 2001.
After 15 years as an ISP – come back to me and tell me that you still agree with Net Neutrality.

At one stage I had 25,000 users utilising a 64 kbps connection to the USA and we were (ausnet services) voted best ISP in Australia 6 months in a row by APC magazine.

Communism in Russia failed.
A remodelled Social Democratic type of Socialism survives in some European Countries today.

When you can understand why pure Marxism failed – you will also understand why Net Neutrality is a dream.

The short answer is that there will always be a group of Capitalists that feel they deserve more of the pie than is their fair share.

Yeah yeah – bake a bigger pie…… is an empty rhetoric.
I am happy to debate this subject further on either side of the equation (I too would like net neutrality to be a realistic dream) with anyone that has had more than 20,000 customers located on more than one continent (with the continents seperated by a body of water called an ocean. in other words the five lakes does’nt do it.)

Anyone else just doesnt really have a “clue”.

heh heh – Red flag hung on clothesline…. waiting for bull to notice.

1. See my response to him in the other post.
2. Don’t claim to be a p2p “advocate”, while apologizing for the fact that ISP’s are basically selling a nonexistent product (all their jabbering about “superfast connections”).
3. Admit that it’s not the ISP’s against “the kids” (big, steaming pile of RIAA-sanctioned boilerplate). It’s actually more like “ISP’s vs. ‘anybody who might actually innovate in some way at some future point.’ Sorry, but that ain’t gonna wash — sounds a hell of a lot like the Bernie Madoff school of business to me

And, as for this being about the “arrogance of Americans and Canadians”, well hell yeah — if by that you mean that it’s somehow “arrogant” to expect that you’re actually getting something at least *kinda* like what you think you bought.

Bye, now

A person would think that.
A ‘created individual’ , that is, a Corporation, is to arrogant to understand that basic concept.
Apparently, this arrogance isn’t isolated to just Corporate persons

Yes, but this has little to do with the meaning of my original statement. Everyone else seemed to understand,
but you didn’t.

The Labels hate p2p because instead of being able to foist off a lousy CD with one good song ( Turd Sandwich ),
on people, that once the pay for it they can’t return once they found out what was really inside the sandwich,
p2p allows potential buyers to examine the entire sandwich BEFORE wasting a dime on it.

After all, even if the turd is polished, upon proper and fair examination it is still, after all , a turd.

P2p allows this proper and fair examination, and the delicious, meaty angus burgers are properly paid for
when they are discovered, ( proved by the studied effect of p2p on sales … 0 ).

Because of P2P, we no longer have to wander the crowded pature, blinfolded and barefoot.

“The arrogance of Americans and Canadians in regards to the amount of bandwidth available and what it shoud cost is amazing.”

You’ll notice, once again, it is the USERS who are being labelled – this time as “arrogant”, apparently because they expect to actually use the service as outlined and sold them by their providers.

I think it’s arrogant for a company to tell me I can have an 2009 Astin Martin for the price of a Toyota, and then deliver me a 1980 Hyundai and expect me to gleefully accept it and keep paying for it. It’s the same thing!

“Bad economic times” is no excuse to openly disrespect and rip off your customers.
Geez, you’d think it would be an excuse to actually suck up to them a little more, as you need them more than ever!

Indeed, you are unique! We need more like you in the provider arena.
None of the criticism I’m putting out here actually applies to Teksavvy, or any of the GAS (or similar) providers, anyway, as I view you guys as Bell victims just as much as their own subscribers. (Maybe moreso, when I think about it!)
________________

@Tom:

“The arrogance of Americans and Canadians in regards to the amount of bandwidth available and what it should cost is amazing.”

Once again, you illustrate my point about side-stepping reality…

Providers can bitch all they want about anything they want.
As long as they’re still demanding and collecting the whole premium rate from their customers, while still dumbing down that service, they’ve given up the right to complain about “failing economics”, period! If they had any respect for their customers, and wanted to show how much they appreciate the “hard times”, they would dumb down the subscription fee, in light of the reduced service they’re providing.

Yeah, but there’s one problem with doing that, huh?!
That would acknowledge the fact that they’re already breaking their own customer contracts, and are aware of it.